Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Home medicines reviews and residential medication management reviews in Western Australia

  • Research Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background Australian government funding for Residential Medication Management Reviews and Home Medicines Reviews commenced in 1997 and 2001 respectively. Limited data are available on their provision in Australia. Objective To investigate the extent and characteristics of Home Medicines Review and Residential Medication Management Review services provided by accredited pharmacists practising in Western Australia. Setting Pharmacists in Western Australia accredited by the Australian Association of Consultant Pharmacy or Society of Hospital Pharmacists of Australia. Method A paper questionnaire was developed and sent to 198 accredited pharmacists in Western Australia in June 2017. Simple descriptive statistics summarised demographic information and other responses. Logistic regression evaluated factors associated with the frequency of provision of Home Medicines Reviews. Main outcome measure Frequency and factors influencing services provided. Results Of 102 (51.5%) questionnaires returned, 67 (65.7%) respondents were female. Many were aged between 31 and 40 years (53; 52.0%). Most were accredited by the Australian Association of Consultant Pharmacy (101; 99.0%) and mainly offered Home Medicines Reviews (70; 68.6%). Home Medicines Reviews provided over the previous 12 months were limited in frequency with one quarter providing either 1–10 (27; 26.5%) or 21–50 (28; 27.5%) reviews. The median “average” preparation, interview and report writing times, plus communication with other health professionals aggregated to 175.0 min (interquartile range: 140.0–235.0 min) for Home Medicine Reviews and 110.0 min (90.0–140.0) for Residential Medication Management Reviews. Pharmacists born overseas and those who were accredited for a longer time were associated with performing 51 or more Home Medicines Reviews annually. Only one-third (36/101; 35.6%) agreed the current payment was appropriate. Most agreed their Home Medicines Reviews (92/96; 95.8%) and Residential Medication Management Reviews (26/28; 92.9%) provided improved patient outcomes. Over 97% of accredited pharmacists intended to continue to remain accredited. Conclusions Wide variations were evident in the times taken for tasks associated with performing reviews. Most respondents considered their medication reviews contributed to improved patient outcomes. The wide variation in times taken for the reviews suggests a tiered structure for service provision, with appropriate payment within each tier, since most consider current remuneration inadequate.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Silva ROS, Macêdo LA, dos Santos GA Jr, Aguiar PM, de Lyra DP Jr. Pharmacist-participated medication review in different practice settings: service or intervention? An overview of systematic reviews. PloS ONE. 2019;14(1):e0210312. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210312.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Mossialos E, Courtin E, Naci H, Benrimoj S, Bouvy M, Farris K, et al. From “retailers” to health care providers: transforming the role of community pharmacists in chronic disease management. Health Policy. 2015;119(5):628–39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Zermansky AG, Petty DR, Raynor DK, Freemantle N, Vail A, Lowe CJ. Randomised controlled trial of clinical medication review by a pharmacist of elderly patients receiving repeat prescriptions in general practice. BMJ. 2001;323(7325):1340.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Lenander C, Elfsson B, Danielsson B, Midlöv P, Hasselström J. Effects of a pharmacist-led structured medication review in primary care on drug-related problems and hospital admission rates: a randomized controlled trial. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2014;32:180–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Bulajeva A, Labberton L, Leikola S, Pohjanoksa-Mäntylä M, Geurts M, De Gier J, et al. Medication review practices in European countries. Res Social Admin Pharm. 2014;10:731–40.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Jokanovic N, Tan EC, van den Bosch D, Kirkpatrick CM, Dooley MJ, Bell JS. Clinical medication review in Australia: a systematic review. Res Soc Adm Pharm. 2016;12:384–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Kogut SJ, Goldstein E, Charbonneau C, Jackson A, Patry G. Improving medication management after a hospitalization with pharmacist home visits and electronic personal health records: an observational study. Drug Healthc Patient Saf. 2014;6:1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Roughead EE, Barratt JD, Ramsay E, Pratt N, Ryan P, Peck R, et al. The effectiveness of collaborative medicine reviews in delaying time to next hospitalization for patients With heart failure in the practice setting: results of a cohort study. Circ Heart Fail. 2009;2:424–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Castelino RL, Hilmer SN, Bajorek BV, Nishtala P, Chen TF. Drug burden index and potentially inappropriate medications in community-dwelling older people. Drugs Aging. 2010;27:135–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. PSA Australia. Medicine safety: take care. Deakin West: Pharmaceutical Society of Austraia; 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Chen TF. Pharmacist-led home medicines review and residential medication management review: the Australian model. Drugs Aging. 2016;33:199–204.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Australian Government. Program rules—home medicines review. In: Health; Do, (ed). Canberra: Australian Government; 2019.

  13. Weir K, Naganathan V, Rigby D, McCaffery K, Bonner C, Trevena L, et al. Home medicines reviews: a qualitative study of GPs. Aust J Prim Health. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1071/PY19072.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Jokanovic N, Tan EC, Sudhakaran S, Kirkpatrick CM, Dooley MJ, Ryan-Atwood TE, et al. Pharmacist-led medication review in community settings: an overview of systematic reviews. Res Social Admin Pharm. 2017;13(4):661–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Roughead EE, Barratt JD, Ramsay E, Pratt N, Ryan P, Peck R, et al. Collaborative home medicines review delays time to next hospitalization for warfarin associated bleeding in Australian war veterans. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2011;36:27–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Australian Government. Program rules—residential medication management review and quality use of medicines. Canberra; 2019.

  17. Australian Government: Department of Health. Residential medication management review and QUM—the sixth community pharmacy agreement; 2015.

  18. Stafford A. A clinical and economic evaluation of medication reviews conducted by pharmacists for community-dwelling Australians. Ph.D. thesis University ofTasmania; 2012. P. 437.

  19. Ellett LMK, Ramsay EN, Barratt JD, Gilbert AL, Roughead EE. Home medicines reviews: extent of uptake by high-risk veterans. J Pharm Pract Res. 2013;43:182–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 6th Community Pharmacy Agreement. http://6cpa.com.au/2018/06/indexation-of-service-fees-2018-19/. Accessed 16 Dec 2019.

  21. Freeman C, Cottrell WN, Kyle G, Williams I, Nissen L. Does a primary care practice pharmacist improve the timeliness and completion of medication management reviews? Int J Pharm Pract. 2012;20:395–401.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Tan EC, Stewart K, Elliott RA, George J. Pharmacist consultations in general practice clinics: the Pharmacists in Practice Study (PIPS). Res Soc Adm Pharm. 2014;10:623–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Dhillon AK, Hattingh HL, Stafford A, Hoti K. General practitioners’ perceptions on home medicines reviews: a qualitative analysis. BMC Fam Pract. 2015;16:16.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Chen EY, Wang KN, Sluggett JK, Ilomäki J, Hilmer SN, Corlis M, et al. Process, impact and outcomes of medication review in Australian residential aged care facilities: a systematic review. Australas J Ageing. 2019;38(Suppl 2):9–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/qjag.12676.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Pharmacy Guild of Australia. Changes to community pharmacy agreement programs. 2014. https://www.guild.org.au/news-events/news/2014/02/12/changes-to-community-pharmacy-agreement-programs. Accessed 17 Dec 2019.

  26. Holland R, Lenaghan E, Harvey I, Smith R, Shepstone L, Lipp A, et al. Does home based medication review keep older people out of hospital? The HOMER randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2005;330(7486):293.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Sorensen L, Stokes JA, Purdie DM, Woodward M, Elliott R, Roberts MS. Medication reviews in the community: results of a randomized, controlled effectiveness trial. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2004;58:648–64.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Australian Association of Accredited pharmacists. https://aacp.com.au/accreditation/how-to-become-accredited/ Societ of Hospital Pharmacists of Australia https://www.shpa.org.au/credentials-to-further-your-career. Accessed 14 Dec 2019.

  29. Basheti IA, Al-Qudah RA, Obeidat NM, Bulatova NR. Home medication management review in outpatients with chronic diseases in Jordan: a randomized control trial. Int J Clin Pharm. 2016;38:404–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Stafford L, Stafford A, Hughes J, Angley M, Bereznicki L, Peterson G. Drug-related problems identified in post-discharge medication reviews for patients taking warfarin. Int J Clin Pharm. 2011;33:621–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the accredited pharmacists who took the time to complete the questionnaire and AACP for the distribution of the questionnaires.

Funding

This study was funded by a J M O’Hara Research Grant, Pharmaceutical Society of Western Australia.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Pharmacy and Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, Curtin University, Kent St, Bentley, WA, 6102, Australia

    Petra Czarniak, Tin Fei Sim, Bronwen Wright & Bruce Sunderland

  2. Gold Coast Health, Gold Coast, QLD, 4215, Australia

    Laetitia Hattingh

  3. School of Pharmacy and Pharmacology, Griffith University, Gold Coast, QLD, 4222, Australia

    Laetitia Hattingh

  4. School of Occupational Therapy, Social Work and Speech Pathology, Faculty of Health Sciences, Curtin University, Kent St, Bentley, WA, 6102, Australia

    Richard Parsons

Authors
  1. Petra Czarniak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Laetitia Hattingh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tin Fei Sim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Richard Parsons
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Bronwen Wright
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Bruce Sunderland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Petra Czarniak.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Czarniak, P., Hattingh, L., Sim, T.F. et al. Home medicines reviews and residential medication management reviews in Western Australia. Int J Clin Pharm 42, 567–578 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-020-01001-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-020-01001-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation